The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
he assessee had already offered the same project income to tax in later years. The Tribunal held that taxing it again earlier would amount to double taxation. Key takeaway: timing disputes cannot justify taxing the same income twice.
Swaroop Kudalkar Vs Assessment Unit (ITAT Pune) Ex-parte Assessment & NFAC Dismissal Set Aside in Legal Heir Case; Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication – ITAT Pune The Pune Bench of the ITAT, in Swaroop Kudalkar (Legal Heir of Late Roshan Kudalkar) vs. Assessment Unit (ITA No.2132/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21, order dated 18-12-2025), set aside the ex-parte […]
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
The tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with Cooperative Banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), overturning the earlier disallowance.
The ITAT held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid if based solely on investigation reports, emphasizing the need for independent AO satisfaction.
The AO was directed to recompute capital gains based on DVO valuation but had ignored indexation. The Tribunal ruled that recomputation without indexation is legally impermissible.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that credit entries in the assessee’s account were correctly assessed, even though initial cash deposits belonged to a company, ensuring proper attribution of income.
The Revenue relied only on the builder’s settlement disclosure to tax the buyer. The ITAT held that third-party admissions, without corroboration or cross-examination, cannot fasten liability on the assessee.
